I found myself in unanticipated hot water when I mentioned that I was astonished to find so many men over, say, 45, who had never been married, and wondered about it. I apologize to anyone who (just technically speaking) qualifies for membership in that select group, and who felt that I was disparaging their social status; on the contrary, I was truly intrigued by how they had slipped through the "marriage trap" that seems to besiege most of us in our 20s and 30s. At half a century of existing on this earth, I fervently believe that very few people know who they are and what they want to give and receive from life until they are in their mid-40s. A gross generalization, but as the mother of a 23 year-old daughter, who has no time to waste on the dramas of short and/or long-term relationships, my perspective has changed significantly from what it was when I first married at 24.

You can really skip the entire first paragraph, because it is a complete digression from my respectful wonderings as of late. Correct me if my impression is off-base, but it appears to me that a large majority of CM members define themselves as having "conservative political views." And thus, quaere whether it is even possible, never mind desirable, to be both Catholic and to have liberal political views. Whichever side of the fence you lean towards, what are your thoughts about how the two segments of life (remember that, at least in the U.S., the separation of church and state is theoretically unassailable) relate to one another?What, exactly, constitutes a politically conservative viewpoint? Who are the "liberals", and what distinguishes them from their brothers and sisters on the other side of the aisle?

As I watch Pope Francis wading into the muddiest of traditional theological waters, emerging cheerfully, if somewhat bedraggled and dripping wet, on the other bank, I find this question of liberal vs. conservative, shoddy Catholic vs. devout, a subject of great fascination - albeit, perhaps I am just easily amused.

(quote) Maura-1030942 said: I found myself in unanticipated hot water when I mentioned that I was astonished to find so many men over, say, 45, who had never been married, and wondered about it. I apologize to anyone who (just technically speaking) qualifies for membership in that select group, and who felt that I was disparaging their social status; on the contrary, I was truly intrigued by how they had slipped through the "marriage trap" that seems to besiege most of us in our 20s and 30s. At half a century of existing on this earth, I fervently believe that very few people know who they are and what they want to give and receive from life until they are in their mid-40s. A gross generalization, but as the mother of a 23 year-old daughter, who has no time to waste on the dramas of short and/or long-term relationships, my perspective has changed significantly from what it was when I first married at 24.

You can really skip the entire first paragraph, because it is a complete digression from my respectful wonderings as of late. Correct me if my impression is off-base, but it appears to me that a large majority of CM members define themselves as having "conservative political views." And thus, quaere whether it is even possible, never mind desirable, to be both Catholic and to have liberal political views. Whichever side of the fence you lean towards, what are your thoughts about how the two segments of life (remember that, at least in the U.S., the separation of church and state is theoretically unassailable) relate to one another?What, exactly, constitutes a politically conservative viewpoint? Who are the "liberals", and what distinguishes them from their brothers and sisters on the other side of the aisle?

As I watch Pope Francis wading into the muddiest of traditional theological waters, emerging cheerfully, if somewhat bedraggled and dripping wet, on the other bank, I find this question of liberal vs. conservative, shoddy Catholic vs. devout, a subject of great fascination - albeit, perhaps I am just easily amused.

It is entirely possibly to be liberal politically and still be a good Catholic.

But not if you are a liberal in the sense of the Democratic Party of Obummer, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Their liberal stance is really not true liberalism. It is kookiness in the guise of liberalism, anti traditional American traditions, fascist, anti-christian (especially Catholic Christianity), anti-feminine, intolerant and above all pro satan.

(quote) Maura-1030942 said: I found myself in unanticipated hot water when I mentioned that I was astonished to find so many men over, say, 45, who had never been married, and wondered about it. I apologize to anyone who (just technically speaking) qualifies for membership in that select group, and who felt that I was disparaging their social status; on the contrary, I was truly intrigued by how they had slipped through the "marriage trap" that seems to besiege most of us in our 20s and 30s. At half a century of existing on this earth, I fervently believe that very few people know who they are and what they want to give and receive from life until they are in their mid-40s. A gross generalization, but as the mother of a 23 year-old daughter, who has no time to waste on the dramas of short and/or long-term relationships, my perspective has changed significantly from what it was when I first married at 24.

You can really skip the entire first paragraph, because it is a complete digression from my respectful wonderings as of late. Correct me if my impression is off-base, but it appears to me that a large majority of CM members define themselves as having "conservative political views." And thus, quaere whether it is even possible, never mind desirable, to be both Catholic and to have liberal political views. Whichever side of the fence you lean towards, what are your thoughts about how the two segments of life (remember that, at least in the U.S., the separation of church and state is theoretically unassailable) relate to one another?What, exactly, constitutes a politically conservative viewpoint? Who are the "liberals", and what distinguishes them from their brothers and sisters on the other side of the aisle?

As I watch Pope Francis wading into the muddiest of traditional theological waters, emerging cheerfully, if somewhat bedraggled and dripping wet, on the other bank, I find this question of liberal vs. conservative, shoddy Catholic vs. devout, a subject of great fascination - albeit, perhaps I am just easily amused.

Hi Maura,

A few points in response.

Catholics can have liberal political views. Most political views of any kind are not incompatible with Catholicism. However some political views are. A person really can not be Catholic and be pro-abortion, pro-active euthanasia, pro-human cloning, against defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, or against religious freedom for Catholics. These are foundational issues. For whatever reason, at least in the U.S., if a person subscribes to these views, they are going to be labeled "right wing" or "conservative" even if they are liberal on other issues.

The separation of church and state, until the late twentieth century, was not considered to mean the separation of religious based morality from law. Laws were openly based on religious based morality when most people were religious and few people considered it a violation of the Constitution. As a matter of history, the Constitution was never intended to give people who subscribe to secular philosophy a "veto" over those people whose view of life is religious. In many cases that's the way the Constitution has been interpreted over the last 50 years or so. But that has been wrong.

(quote) Maura-1030942 said: Correct me if my impression is off-base, but it appears to me that a large majority of CM members define themselves as having "conservative political views." And thus, quaere whether it is even possible, never mind desirable, to be both Catholic and to have liberal political views. Whichever side of the fence you lean towards, what are your thoughts about how the two segments of life (remember that, at least in the U.S., the separation of church and state is theoretically unassailable) relate to one another?What, exactly, constitutes a politically conservative viewpoint? Who are the "liberals", and what distinguishes them from their brothers and sisters on the other side of the aisle?

As I watch Pope Francis wading into the muddiest of traditional theological waters, emerging cheerfully, if somewhat bedraggled and dripping wet, on the other bank, I find this question of liberal vs. conservative, shoddy Catholic vs. devout, a subject of great fascination - albeit, perhaps I am just easily amused.

What does it mean for a person to be "politically conservative" or "politically liberal".? In some cases, there is not even a general consensus as to that the liberal or conservative position is on a specific issue, much less how to categorize a person who holds some views that are liberal and some that are conservative.

Whether or not one is in union with the Catholic Church depends on (among other things) whether their position on issues of moral significance are or are not in accord with the teaching of the Church on each issue, regardless of what labels one might apply to each position.

Catholics can have liberal political views. Most political views of any kind are not incompatible with Catholicism. However some political views are. A person really can not be Catholic and be pro-abortion, pro-active euthanasia, pro-human cloning, against defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, or against religious freedom for Catholics. These are foundational issues. For whatever reason, at least in the U.S., if a person subscribes to these views, they are going to be labeled "right wing" or "conservative" even if they are liberal on other issues.

The separation of church and state, until the late twentieth century, was not considered to mean the separation of religious based morality from law. Laws were openly based on religious based morality when most people were religious and few people considered it a violation of the Constitution. As a matter of history, the Constitution was never intended to give people who subscribe to secular philosophy a "veto" over those people whose view of life is religious. In many cases that's the way the Constitution has been interpreted over the last 50 years or so. But that has been wrong.

Hi Michael,

Excellent points.

And to Maura's question I would say that the blood of the discussion is in the definitions. Under the curve called Catholicism there is a place where almost anyone can comfortably and conscionably rest. A lot of common ground can be established, and contentious digressions avoided, by exercising care and concern for others' definitions and descriptions.

So, Maura, to get things rolling, what would be a couple types of belief, behavior, expression that you would say are generally conservative ?

(quote) Maura-1030942 said: I found myself in unanticipated hot water when I mentioned that I was astonished to find so many men over, say, 45, who had never been married, and wondered about it. I apologize to anyone who (just technically speaking) qualifies for membership in that select group, and who felt that I was disparaging their social status; on the contrary, I was truly intrigued by how they had slipped through the "marriage trap" that seems to besiege most of us in our 20s and 30s. At half a century of existing on this earth, I fervently believe that very few people know who they are and what they want to give and receive from life until they are in their mid-40s. A gross generalization, but as the mother of a 23 year-old daughter, who has no time to waste on the dramas of short and/or long-term relationships, my perspective has changed significantly from what it was when I first married at 24.

You can really skip the entire first paragraph, because it is a complete digression from my respectful wonderings as of late. Correct me if my impression is off-base, but it appears to me that a large majority of CM members define themselves as having "conservative political views." And thus, quaere whether it is even possible, never mind desirable, to be both Catholic and to have liberal political views. Whichever side of the fence you lean towards, what are your thoughts about how the two segments of life (remember that, at least in the U.S., the separation of church and state is theoretically unassailable) relate to one another?What, exactly, constitutes a politically conservative viewpoint? Who are the "liberals", and what distinguishes them from their brothers and sisters on the other side of the aisle?

As I watch Pope Francis wading into the muddiest of traditional theological waters, emerging cheerfully, if somewhat bedraggled and dripping wet, on the other bank, I find this question of liberal vs. conservative, shoddy Catholic vs. devout, a subject of great fascination - albeit, perhaps I am just easily amused.

Maura, My stepson comes from a large liberal Catholic family in Florida, who are adamantly pro-Life. So I would say yes. Because I define myself as a fiscal conservative, some folks assume that I'm also a Tea Party cult follower, that I'm gung-ho to send young American soldiers to die in the next Middle East war, and that I believe the earth is 6,000 years old. Like the term liberal, conservative's meaning has also been dumbed down. Admittedly I'm in a minority, and probably closer to being a Libertarian than a Republican. My former late wife was a liberal democrat and back then I was somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun, but we respected each other's viewpoint and got along fine. Don't make instant judgements~ there are many boxes between the far left and the far right. Don't give up, there's a young(er) man out there somewhere who will love and respect you exactly as you are.

(quote) Maura-1030942 said: I found myself in unanticipated hot water when I mentioned that I was astonished to find so many men over, say, 45, who had never been married, and wondered about it. I apologize to anyone who (just technically speaking) qualifies for membership in that select group, and who felt that I was disparaging their social status; on the contrary, I was truly intrigued by how they had slipped through the "marriage trap" that seems to besiege most of us in our 20s and 30s. At half a century of existing on this earth, I fervently believe that very few people know who they are and what they want to give and receive from life until they are in their mid-40s. A gross generalization, but as the mother of a 23 year-old daughter, who has no time to waste on the dramas of short and/or long-term relationships, my perspective has changed significantly from what it was when I first married at 24.

You can really skip the entire first paragraph, because it is a complete digression from my respectful wonderings as of late. Correct me if my impression is off-base, but it appears to me that a large majority of CM members define themselves as having "conservative political views." And thus, quaere whether it is even possible, never mind desirable, to be both Catholic and to have liberal political views. Whichever side of the fence you lean towards, what are your thoughts about how the two segments of life (remember that, at least in the U.S., the separation of church and state is theoretically unassailable) relate to one another?What, exactly, constitutes a politically conservative viewpoint? Who are the "liberals", and what distinguishes them from their brothers and sisters on the other side of the aisle?

As I watch Pope Francis wading into the muddiest of traditional theological waters, emerging cheerfully, if somewhat bedraggled and dripping wet, on the other bank, I find this question of liberal vs. conservative, shoddy Catholic vs. devout, a subject of great fascination - albeit, perhaps I am just easily amused.

Hi Maura et alia,

Hi, I'm James, the local wizard who causes violence and mayhem in STM. Nice to meet you.

Okay, that's enough small talk.

I find myself wondering why you got into trouble over your observation and wonderment over the fact that there are a lot of men here over the age of 45 who have never been married. I'm not sure what the trouble was. Just ask us, and we will answer. Except for me, most guys here are pretty cool.

As my friend the distinguished wizard Jerry has pointed out, your weltanschauung needs to be in accord with the teachings of the Catholic faith, regardless of what label you put on your political views. There are far-right conservatives who are not pro-life, and there are liberals who are pro-life (if you assume Democrats are "liberal").

I enjoyed reading your post, and I also noticed that only guys responded, but I wantedto add my take on your topic.

Most people on STM know that I am conservative, and very much so. In responseto your question of views vs. religion, I feel that on many levels, it is not religion, butlove of what we call "America," that dictates one's political position. The catholicchurch does not care about what happens to America, nor do liberals orcommunists.

America is not only a nation, but it is a concept. It exists because many, who camebefore us, wanted a land where the little person was important, as important as royalty and/or dictators. So, it was founded as a land where men were free topursue their life's dreams and work hard or not, and build up their own earnedwealth and break social barriers because there were no social barriersin this new country.

That lack of barriers and the concept of achieving wealth for anyone who wantedto work for it was a new concept and came from the minds of great men. Today,the idea of being able to have wealth or to have anything that one has notworked for, is a false and manipulative meaning of what America is about.

At the same time, the preciousness of what we call America, has becomethreatened, and its sovereignty pulled apart because it is being taken overby a mindset born of socialism. And that mindset has no regard for protectingour country's borders or balancing its books or having a common language orbeing able to say things without being belittled by the manipulative PC police.

It is my goal, as someone who loves America, to protect it. And anyone whocares about our country and appreciates the tenets of its founders, can beof any religion, but cannot be an American-hating liberal.

Being Catholic and openly practicing it is a privilege afforded to us by living here.Yet, I cannot stand by and watch our country go down because religion preachesotherwise. Religion is in my heart, yet America is where I reside.

So, Maura, you can be Catholic, or not Catholic and you can be Liberal orConservative, but we have to realize that protecting America should bean important concern.

..... The catholic church does not care about what happens to America ....watch our country go down because religion preaches otherwise. Religion is in my heart, yet America is where I reside.

There are elements within Scripture and Tradition that can be applied to conflicts between faith and patriotism.

Subsidiarity distributes the love of the Church for the proper stewardship of talents, for stewardship between the individual, the collectivities that are local, regional, national or international, and the cosmic. It renders to John and Jane Q. Citizen what is his or hers, to each Caesar (or Leviathan) what is its, and to God what is his.

The wheat and tares, or the dressing of a nonperforming fig tree for another year, are pictures of the Church's love for orderly governance, the Holy Spirit being a spirit of order, a feature of which is know when to fix something that is 'broke'.

Debate becomes shouting past each other when the opposing sides do not stream their views at each other through the same channel. It's no good if liberals and conservatives wrap themselves in their own conceptions of the flag before shouting at each other. They have to wrap themselves in the same flag before shouting at each other because then they will be speaking to the same fundamentals. But the same flag isn't the Stars and Stripes: who knows what the Stars and Stripes means, unless somebody tells you? Who knows what the Scriptures mean, if you're not told, as the Ethiopian eunuch said?

To start with a big and meaty issue, the 'protection of borders', as relevant in Australia as in the US, what can subsidiarity say about the large-scale unauthorised movement of incarnated images of Christ, seeking relief from worries at home, into your home?

(quote) Roystan-340472 said: There are elements within Scripture and Tradition that can be applied to conflicts between faith and patriotism.

Subsidiarity distributes the love of the Church for the proper stewardship of talents, for stewardship between the individual, the collectivities that are local, regional, national or international, and the cosmic. It renders to John and Jane Q. Citizen what is his or hers, to each Caesar (or Leviathan) what is its, and to God what is his.

The wheat and tares, or the dressing of a nonperforming fig tree for another year, are pictures of the Church's love for orderly governance, the Holy Spirit being a spirit of order, a feature of which is know when to fix something that is 'broke'.

Debate becomes shouting past each other when the opposing sides do not stream their views at each other through the same channel. It's no good if liberals and conservatives wrap themselves in their own conceptions of the flag before shouting at each other. They have to wrap themselves in the same flag before shouting at each other because then they will be speaking to the same fundamentals. But the same flag isn't the Stars and Stripes: who knows what the Stars and Stripes means, unless somebody tells you? Who knows what the Scriptures mean, if you're not told, as the Ethiopian eunuch said?

To start with a big and meaty issue, the 'protection of borders', as relevant in Australia as in the US, what can subsidiarity say about the large-scale unauthorised movement of incarnated images of Christ, seeking relief from worries at home, into your home?

Roystan:

I want to start off by commending your wonderful biblical references. Yes, Scripture and Tradition can be applied to conflict between faith and patriotism. But your wonderful references loose credibility when you are talking about a nation of 350 million people, and many different gods to offer allegiance.

I also had a good laugh when you tried to compare America and Australia and borderproblems. No part of your country is land locked. And your population is less than10 percent of ours. Way less. Correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, give to Caesar what is his and to God what is his. I just cannot find it in my heartto watch populations of Americans stay living in slums and drug infested neighborhoodswith no hope of escaping, generation after generation. They need the help andassets of a nation who cares about its own. Yet, money and other resources are taken by people who have no right to be in America, and have no right to assets which are the birthright of Americans and have no actual right to the American dream. When the slumsare cleared out, then we can have the luxury of sharing our wealth.

Hard work and the battle cry of freedom is what made America what it is today, and thatalso means the loss of precious lives. Most of the countries where the illegals come from are just as blessed with natural resources as we are in America. But it is easier to have someone else set the table and someone else prepare the food, then inviting yourselfto the table rather than preparing it for yourself. That is called stealing and alsolaziness.

Our forefathers worked hard to leave an inheritance for us, and that meant leavingthings for us, better than what they received. As Americans we have an obligation toprotect that gift and legacy and to pass it down to future generations. Not have itbullied from us under the guise of charity.

The One World theory is being forced upon us. It is not our legacy, but a socialist legacy. And trying to rationalize the need for America to open its arms and forgetabout its borders and give to the less fortunate is to deny the true charitableness and generosity of the American Spirit. It is a surefire way of manipulatingthe truth to foster shame. Americans have no need to feel bad. No othercountry gives like Americans have. And no other country has been as generousas America has.

Good try, though, Roystan. I am sure your country has a noble past and present,but I can only comment on my country.